What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

Author:

Haby Michelle M.123ORCID,Barreto Jorge Otávio Maia4ORCID,Kim Jenny Yeon Hee1ORCID,Peiris Sasha1ORCID,Mansilla Cristián56ORCID,Torres Marcela1,Guerrero‐Magaña Diego Emmanuel7ORCID,Reveiz Ludovic1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Science and Knowledge Unit, Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health Department Pan American Health Organization Washington DC USA

2. Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences University of Sonora Hermosillo Mexico

3. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health The University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

4. Fiocruz Brasília, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Brasília Brazil

5. McMaster Health Forum McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

6. Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

7. Doctoral Program in Chemical and Biological Sciences and Health, Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences University of Sonora Hermosillo Mexico

Abstract

AbstractRapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision‐maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full‐text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.

Funder

Pan American Health Organization

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Education

Reference123 articles.

1. Rapid reviews methods series: involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users;Garritty C;BMJ Evid Based Med,2023

2. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

3. JPTH ThomasJ ChandlerJ et al. eds.Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021) Cochrane; 2021.https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3